Let's drug-test the rich before approving tax deductions, US congresswoman says

[Deacon923]

The one thing all those tax payers have in common is that they are paying taxes...

The social compact (or implied social contract) dictates that there is a cost associated to living in a society. The fact that government has the power to take all of your money does not mean that any society would allow that or an implied contract would be that completely one sided. The money that you earn does not belong to the government, who then allows you to keep a portion of it. The money that you earn belongs to you. You owe a portion of that money (sometimes a negative portion) to the government.

The view that all money belongs to the government is analogous to slavery as money is the fruit of your labor (or someone else's). If the government owns the fruit of your labor, you have only as much freedom as the government allows you to have. This is definitely not how this country was designed to operate.

The view that the money you earn belongs to the government is a particularly nasty viewpoint that cannot co-exist with a free society based on free markets. That viewpoint is well on the way to a totalitarian system.

See my response to Wrangor's essentially identical argument. You are conflating morality with tax policy, and then attempting to apply morality to a particular tax expenditure, or tax expenditures as a whole. It does not work.

 

[RJKarl]

the fun part about this discussion is that no matter what you believe, in the end, it's the government letting you keep money.

Taxes are the price of admission and doing business in a civilized society. There will always be complaints about how the money is spent.

The difference is the US has more deductions for everyone and especially the rich. We also don't give as much to the poor and working poor as other western societies.

 

[knowell]

the fun part about this discussion is that no matter what you believe, in the end, it's the government letting you keep money.

Same thing if you get mugged.

 

[knowell]

See my response to Wrangor's essentially identical argument. You are conflating morality with tax policy, and then attempting to apply morality to a particular tax expenditure, or tax expenditures as a whole. It does not work.

I saw your response to Wrangor. We may not disagree as much as it seems. You definitely need to find a different way to word what you are saying.

 

[Deacon923]

I saw your response to Wrangor. We may not disagree as much as it seems. You definitely need to find a different way to word what you are saying.

perhaps so, but I also think that the conservative wing of the Tunnels would be well served if they didn't react to every suggestion to do away with a particular tax deduction as if that particular deduction was gifted to them by Almighty God in Heaven Above, and derail the conversation into talk about communism and slavery and tyranny.

 

[Wrangor]

You mischaracterize my argument, sir, and as such I'll respond.

There is no philosophical disagreement between us at all. I'll stipulate to all you have said on the philosophical side of the ledger. What we're talking about here is government budgeting, and specifically, about tax expenditures directed by the government to encourage certain behaviors, or, at least as often, reward economic actors who are politically connected. The point is this: earning $100 is philosophically different from being given $100 by the government. But that is not the same as saying that somehow, you are more entitled to a particular type of tax deduction than your poor neighbor is entitled to a particular type of welfare payment. Why should you be? The government can change either of them, at any time.

Here's a great example from the agricultural world: if you lose money on your farm for 4 years in a row, it will be declared a "hobby" and you won't be able to take any more deductions from your farming activities against your other income. But if you happen to be in the business of thoroughbred horse farming, you get 7 years of losses. Why? Political connections, nothing more. Government doing a favor for one favored group over another. It would be silly for the horse farmers to argue that somehow their tax expenditure is more noble and virtuous than the corn farmer.

So it's fine to draw a moral distinction between a handout and earnings. But it makes no sense at all to look at any given individual tax expenditure, or tax expenditures in the aggregate, and say that these things are distinguishable at all from other forms of government spending. What you are doing is conflating the moral or philosophical issue with the tax policy issue. If we did away with many tax expenditures and instead went to a flatter, lower tax rate, that would accomplish exactly the same thing with less government meddling in the economy. Most conservatives would say that's a good thing, as long as their own pet tax expenditure is not touched. If it is, then suddenly that particular tax expenditure becomes a moral and philosophical issue. It is not, no matter how much you want to make it one.

I'll respond in a bit. Good points but have some disagreements.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[knowell]

perhaps so, but I also think that the conservative wing of the Tunnels would be well served if they didn't react to every suggestion to do away with a particular tax deduction as if that particular deduction was gifted to them by Almighty God in Heaven Above, and derail the conversation into talk about communism and slavery and tyranny.

I haven't seen that reaction to removing a tax deduction. I think a lot of those on that side of the ledger could get behind a flat tax with no deductions.

The reaction is to whom does your money belong. Conservatives (and libertarians) have long felt that those on the far left believe that all money belongs to government first and if you behave well, the government may let you keep some of it. The way you presented your point made it seem that you were advancing this viewpoint.

 

[2&2 Slider To Leyritz]

You mischaracterize my argument, sir, and as such I'll respond.

There is no philosophical disagreement between us at all. I'll stipulate to all you have said on the philosophical side of the ledger. What we're talking about here is government budgeting, and specifically, about tax expenditures directed by the government to encourage certain behaviors, or, at least as often, reward economic actors who are politically connected. The point is this: earning $100 is philosophically different from being given $100 by the government. But that is not the same as saying that somehow, you are more entitled to a particular type of tax deduction than your poor neighbor is entitled to a particular type of welfare payment. Why should you be? The government can change either of them, at any time.

Here's a great example from the agricultural world: if you lose money on your farm for 4 years in a row, it will be declared a "hobby" and you won't be able to take any more deductions from your farming activities against your other income. But if you happen to be in the business of thoroughbred horse farming, you get 7 years of losses. Why? Political connections, nothing more. Government doing a favor for one favored group over another. It would be silly for the horse farmers to argue that somehow their tax expenditure is more noble and virtuous than the corn farmer.

So it's fine to draw a moral distinction between a handout and earnings. But it makes no sense at all to look at any given individual tax expenditure, or tax expenditures in the aggregate, and say that these things are distinguishable at all from other forms of government spending. What you are doing is conflating the moral or philosophical issue with the tax policy issue. If we did away with many tax expenditures and instead went to a flatter, lower tax rate, that would accomplish exactly the same thing with less government meddling in the economy. Most conservatives would say that's a good thing, as long as their own pet tax expenditure is not touched. If it is, then suddenly that particular tax expenditure becomes a moral and philosophical issue. It is not, no matter how much you want to make it one.

perhaps so, but I also think that the conservative wing of the Tunnels would be well served if they didn't react to every suggestion to do away with a particular tax deduction as if that particular deduction was gifted to them by Almighty God in Heaven Above, and derail the conversation into talk about communism and slavery and tyranny.

Not really. If, for the purposes of discussion, you want to focus on the strict tax policy itself and not the moral aspect of it, then that is fine, but you are still not correct about the starting point.

Section 1(a) of the US Tax Code, from which thousands and thousands of subsequent sections and regulations waterfall and follow, begins with "There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of [every married individual] ... a tax determined in accordance with the following ..." Note that it is limited to the taxable income, not all income. The question obviously arises as to what is "taxable income" in each individual taxpayer's situation, but there is still a presumption at the absolute center and core of our entire tax system and policy that not all income is taxable and therefore remains the property of he who earned it.

It does not say "all income is taxable unless we carve out a deduction", which I think is what you are trying to say. It says taxable income is taxable. So its root is more favorable to the taxpayer than you are giving it credit for.

 

[Deacon923]

Not really. If, for the purposes of discussion, you want to focus on the strict tax policy itself and not the moral aspect of it, then that is fine, but you are still not correct about the starting point.

Section 1(a) of the US Tax Code, from which thousands and thousands of subsequent sections and regulations waterfall and follow, begins with "There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of [every married individual] ... a tax determined in accordance with the following ..." Note that it is limited to the taxable income, not all income. The question obviously arises as to what is "taxable income" in each individual taxpayer's situation, but there is still a presumption at the absolute center and core of our entire tax system and policy that not all income is taxable and therefore remains the property of he who earned it.

It does not say "all income is taxable unless we carve out a deduction", which I think is what you are trying to say. It says taxable income is taxable. So its root is more favorable to the taxpayer than you are giving it credit for.

Agreed. Not the issue I am advancing at all.

 

[scooter84]

the fun part about this discussion is that no matter what you believe, in the end, it's the government letting you keep money.

Man, that is a messed up way of thinking about it - and it essentially seems Un-American. Others have said it much better than me already - but, it is my money and the government is allowed to wake as much of it as I agree that they can take as part of the social contract. The mechanism by which I agree that they can take it is by voting in representatives that will create and implement tax policies that I agree with. Now the practicality of all that is much more complicated, obviously, but, at its core, the government governs at the behest and permission of the governed. At least that is the theory.

 

[scooter84]

perhaps so, but I also think that the conservative wing of the Tunnels would be well served if they didn't react to every suggestion to do away with a particular tax deduction as if that particular deduction was gifted to them by Almighty God in Heaven Above, and derail the conversation into talk about communism and slavery and tyranny.

Yea, that seems like a straw man - at least I haven't seen that reaction. Most people I know would welcome simplification of the tax code - which would mean elimination of a lot of deductions - especially if it led to a flatter tax. The left doesn't like that idea, generally, because they believe that the last few hundred thousand you make should be taxed at a much higher rate than the first few hundred thousand.

 

[ImTheCaptain]

Man, that is a messed up way of thinking about it - and it essentially seems Un-American. Others have said it much better than me already - but, it is my money and the government is allowed to wake as much of it as I agree that they can take as part of the social contract. The mechanism by which I agree that they can take it is by voting in representatives that will create and implement tax policies that I agree with. Now the practicality of all that is much more complicated, obviously, but, at its core, the government governs at the behest and permission of the governed. At least that is the theory.

reality is a depressing place, sometimes

 

[Deacon923]

I haven't seen that reaction to removing a tax deduction. I think a lot of those on that side of the ledger could get behind a flat tax with no deductions.

The reaction is to whom does your money belong. Conservatives (and libertarians) have long felt that those on the far left believe that all money belongs to government first and if you behave well, the government may let you keep some of it. The way you presented your point made it seem that you were advancing this viewpoint.

The issue comes up whenever there is a discussion about deficits and reducing the national debt. Conservatives want to focus the entire conversation on the spending side of the ledger, but refuse to acknowledge that tax expenditures are actually a form of government spending, just like payments for people (and jet fighters) that don't work. It's a deflection tactic to try to keep the discussion on reducing expenditures on anything but the tax deductions handed out like candy, mainly to the wealthy, because they "earned it". No, they may have earned the money, but they didn't earn the tax deduction. That's a favor granted by the government. Acknowledging this fact is not the same as espousing the position that all income is the property of the state or whatever other nefarious commie-lib nonsense is projected upon the logic.

 

[ImTheCaptain]

that was intentional, right

 

[RJKarl]

I haven't seen that reaction to removing a tax deduction. I think a lot of those on that side of the ledger could get behind a flat tax with no deductions.

The reaction is to whom does your money belong. Conservatives (and libertarians) have long felt that those on the far left believe that all money belongs to government first and if you behave well, the government may let you keep some of it. The way you presented your point made it seem that you were advancing this viewpoint.

A flat tax is the right's way to give the rich a huge cut and soak the middle class for more taxes.

 

[Wrangor]

Knowell and 2&2 states pretty much the points I was going to make. No one is arguing that the economic impact is different. Money is money. But there is a massive philosophical difference in the government deciding to not bill you as highly for existing and the government giving away free money for existing. The latter is benevolence the former is not.

I am not suggesting we remove the social safety net. We need it. I think we could be more effective but I am not turning this into a discussion about 'mooches and makers' but it is important to call it like it is.

Farm subsidies (when they existed) were benevolences. Allowing depreciation is not.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Deacon923]

Knowell and 2&2 states pretty much the points I was going to make. No one is arguing that the economic impact is different. Money is money. But there is a massive philosophical difference in the government deciding to not bill you as highly for existing and the government giving away free money for existing. The latter is benevolence the former is not.

I am not suggesting we remove the social safety net. We need it. I think we could be more effective but I am not turning this into a discussion about 'mooches and makers' but it is important to call it like it is.

Farm subsidies (when they existed) were benevolences. Allowing depreciation is not.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's fine; I would simply make a further distinction. Offering a lower tax rate across the board is "the government deciding to not bill you as highly for existing". Targeting tax expenditures at favored groups is giving away free money to those groups because the government wants to subsidize them, which is not too different from "the government giving away free money for existing". In fact, to understand my argument, you can feel free to leave safety net payments out of the analysis entirely and just look at the tax code. How is it fair to corn farmers that (usually very wealthy) horse farmers get 3 more years to prove their little race horse hobby is profitable? How is it not a handout to me when I get a deduction for choosing to buy a big house and take out a big mortgage, and then max my equity line to buy a boat, while the guy in the next cubicle chooses to live modestly in an apartment and save his money for retirement? I'm being rewarded with cold hard cash for choices or life circumstances the government deems preferable or worthy of protecting.

As to depreciation - I fail to see how depreciation is a God-given right inherent in the concept of ordered liberty or any less a benevolence than farm subsidies. It makes excellent economic sense (much more so than many other tax deductions) but it is allowed by government grace, and it is frequently adjusted and juiced up to try and induce behaviors the government wants (i.e., allowing accelerated depreciation or outright expensing of capital purchases for a limited time during a recession to juice the economy).

 

[ImTheCaptain]

considering that "value" and "depreciation" are completely arbitrary figments of our imagination perhaps we should not be surprised conservatives lash them to God

 

[2&2 Slider To Leyritz]

That's fine; I would simply make a further distinction. Offering a lower tax rate across the board is "the government deciding to not bill you as highly for existing". Targeting tax expenditures at favored groups is giving away free money to those groups because the government wants to subsidize them, which is not too different from "the government giving away free money for existing". In fact, to understand my argument, you can feel free to leave safety net payments out of the analysis entirely and just look at the tax code. How is it fair to corn farmers that (usually very wealthy) horse farmers get 3 more years to prove their little race horse hobby is profitable? How is it not a handout to me when I get a deduction for choosing to buy a big house and take out a big mortgage, and then max my equity line to buy a boat, while the guy in the next cubicle chooses to live modestly in an apartment and save his money for retirement? I'm being rewarded with cold hard cash for choices or life circumstances the government deems preferable or worthy of protecting.

As to depreciation - I fail to see how depreciation is a God-given right inherent in the concept of ordered liberty or any less a benevolence than farm subsidies. It makes excellent economic sense (much more so than many other tax deductions) but it is allowed by government grace, and it is frequently adjusted and juiced up to try and induce behaviors the government wants (i.e., allowing accelerated depreciation or outright expensing of capital purchases for a limited time during a recession to juice the economy).

Because it isn't a reward, it is simply getting screwed less. There is a big difference. If two houses get robbed and one house has two TVs stolen while the other house has one TV stolen, did the guy with one stolen TV get a reward? Of course not. They both got screwed, one just got screwed less.

 

[Deacon923]

Because it isn't a reward, it is simply getting screwed less. There is a big difference. If two houses get robbed and one house has two TVs stolen while the other house has one TV stolen, did the guy with one stolen TV get a reward? Of course not. They both got screwed, one just got screwed less.

If you're going to start equating democratically determined taxation with theft, I think we can safely say we've gone as far as we can with this discussion. I hope y'all have a good weekend. It's about to be beer o'clock.